Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 653 posts

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#441

Post by taeric »

coconut08 wrote: post #428
slibhb wrote: post #423

Legality aside, I'm not sure that Amazon is winning in the long run with this strategy. I mostly buy products direct from the manufacturer these days and virtually all manufacturers have high quality websites with solid ordering experiences. As long as they have the name recognition, they can either sell for higher on Amazon and take the advertising hit or just ignore Amazon altogether. I continue to buy some stuff o…

i would pay more money to not have to put my credit card into or attach my identity to 100 different random websites all of which almost certainly have worse security practices than amazon and many of which absolutely will have that data stolen at some point. even for people who don't think about stuff like that, it's way easier for the average person to buy everything from a single place than to go to a bunch of dif…

Isn't this basically what Shopify is, nowadays? Or "buy with Amazon" or a few other options that I can't remember the names of.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#442

Post by pnutjam »

scarface_74 wrote: post #412
pnutjam wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don't even know what the article is discussing. Amazon is killing competition and increasing costs to consumers.

I happen to know exactly what I’m talking about - you right now can look for an item on Amazon and see “this product is available at a lower price with ” You right now can set up a site on Shopify and sell your goods. If you are selling a differentiate product instead of cheap crap imported (or drop shipped) from China, you can create demand without going through Amazon. For instance, I was specifically looking for S…

-- I happen to know exactly what I’m talking about - you right now can look for an item on Amazon and see “this product is available at a lower price with ” Sure, on Amazon. Not other platforms.

I'm not going to bother explaining further, but thanks for confirming you don't understand the issue. It's not my job to educate you.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#443

Post by femto113 »

granzymes wrote: post #389
londons_explore wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon responds that it is within its rights to not promote uncompetitive offers Sounds to me like Amazon has found a loophole in the law. It agrees to list anything for sale, with no anti competitive conditions, but then only recommends customers buy things that it believes are in the customers best interests. The FTC will struggle to argue that is illegal. Amazon can't be compelled to recommend stuff. (free speec…

>It will be hard for the court to argue that amazon should start recommending more expensive items to consumers, just to push consumers into looking for a cheaper platform. Yes, 100% this. That's why I said that this lawsuit has a major remedy problem. Even if the court agrees this is anticompetitive, how do you fix it? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37767994

The insurmountable problem is that the practical interests of "consumers shopping on Amazon" don't actually align with the abstract interests of "consumers in general" that the government is purporting to defend. On Amazon we want to find the right item (search, description, reviews), have strong confidence in the inventory and shipping promises (fulfilled by Amazon) and have reasonable confidence we're not getting screwed on price including shipping (Buybox, Prime eligible etc). If you chop those things apart it becomes essentially impossible to offer the overall experience that consumers clearly prefer.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#444

Post by nonethewiser »

> Once it achieved monopoly power, Amazon squeezed on price through fees to third-party sellers. As a third-party seller, you pay fees for listing on Amazon; for using Amazon’s warehouse services, known as Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA); and for advertising services. If you don’t pay, you don’t get put in a place on the site where consumers click.

So consumers get free shipping that is mostly paid for by third party sellers because it gives them access to a massive customer base. I dont see the problem?

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#445

Post by hroa »

slibhb wrote: post #423

Legality aside, I'm not sure that Amazon is winning in the long run with this strategy. I mostly buy products direct from the manufacturer these days and virtually all manufacturers have high quality websites with solid ordering experiences. As long as they have the name recognition, they can either sell for higher on Amazon and take the advertising hit or just ignore Amazon altogether. I continue to buy some stuff o…

I do the same. I try to buy on manufacture sites when I can. Mainly because of the 1 bin policy. Feels like some times I get products that a seller bought at a discount because of defects or package damage, and these are treated the same as new.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#446

Post by thfuran »

thereddaikon wrote: post #432
thfuran wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should cap the fees. France has fees of something like 0.25% due to regulation.

They also need to be required to act more in line like telco common carriers. The payment processors have too much say in what they will and wont allow to be transacted on their networks which has nothing to do with financial risk or legality.

Absolutely, as loathe as I am to suggest that anything should be more like American telcos.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#447

Post by napierzaza »

nonethewiser wrote: post #444

> Once it achieved monopoly power, Amazon squeezed on price through fees to third-party sellers. As a third-party seller, you pay fees for listing on Amazon; for using Amazon’s warehouse services, known as Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA); and for advertising services. If you don’t pay, you don’t get put in a place on the site where consumers click. So consumers get free shipping that is mostly paid for by third party sel…

[dead]

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#448

Post by [deleted] »

endisneigh wrote: post #56
tartuffe78 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're obligated to by the grip Amazon already has on the e-commerce market. Letting Amazon make anti-competitive moves that increase their grip will only worsen the situation.

This grip you're describing only exists because they don't leave, and nothing is stopping them. Again, no one is forcing people to sell on Amazon. They could use Shopify or sell on eBay. People act as if you have to sell on Amazon. You don't. That assumption and expectation is why Amazon is dominant to begin with. Sellers should leave if they don't like it, and that will naturally soften Amazon dominance.

[deleted]

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#449

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #444

> Once it achieved monopoly power, Amazon squeezed on price through fees to third-party sellers. As a third-party seller, you pay fees for listing on Amazon; for using Amazon’s warehouse services, known as Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA); and for advertising services. If you don’t pay, you don’t get put in a place on the site where consumers click. So consumers get free shipping that is mostly paid for by third party sel…

You could ship outside of FBA but wont get listed in a privileged position.

Re: The FTC sues to break up Amazon over an economy-wide “hidden tax”

#450

Post by edmundsauto »

takeda wrote: post #431
coconut08 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would pay more money to not have to put my credit card into or attach my identity to 100 different random websites all of which almost certainly have worse security practices than amazon and many of which absolutely will have that data stolen at some point. even for people who don't think about stuff like that, it's way easier for the average person to buy everything from a single place than to go to a bunch of dif…

There was this feature provided by banks. I remember BofA was one. Unfortunately they removed it. You could create a temporary credit card number for specific vendor. It even had option to set one time limit or recurring limit. I don't understand why it was taken away, was it giving too much control to the customer?

Google offers virtual credit card numbers fyi. I don’t think they are vendor locked, but offer a potential solution for you. Albeit one with additional drawbacks.
Post reply on HN